ReviewJournal of functional biomaterials2026
Universal Adhesive Brands Functional Performance in Non-Carious Cervical Lesions: 18- to 48-Months Systematic Clinical Report.
Review in Journal of functional biomaterials, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Universal adhesives (UAs) exhibit considerable versatility; however, no single commercial product has attained recognition as a clinical gold standard. This study evaluated the functional performance, retention, and marginal integrity of various UA brands in non-carious cervical lesion (NCCL) restorations and examined the effects of different adhesion strategies. A search of electronic databases was conducted for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) published between 2015 and 2025. Only RCTs that assessed the retention and marginal integrity of UAs with follow-ups of 18-48 months, using the USPHS/FDI criteria, were included. This review was registered with PROSPERO (CRD420251026490) and adhered to PRISMA 2020 and PICOS guidelines. Risk of bias was evaluated using the RoB 2 tool; statistical significance was defined as
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.